55 million reasons not to celebrate Roe v Wade anniversary

posted at 12:01 pm on January 22, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Today is the 40th anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade which transformed abortion from a procedure regulated on a state-by-state basis into a Constitutional right, emanating from invisible penumbras. What has been the consequence of the abortion-on-demand era? More than 55 million abortions have taken place — which amounts to about one-sixth of the current American population:

The United States marks 40 years of legalized abortion in all fifty states at any time for any reason throughout pregnancy on January 22nd, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that time, there have been approximately 55,772,015 abortions that have destroyed the lives of unborn children.

An estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee this time in 2011 indicated there have been an estimated 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

In the document, “Abortion Statistics: United States Data and Trends,” NRLC education director Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon estimates that there have been 54,559,615 abortions since 1973 based on data from both the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, a former Planned Parenthood research arm. Guttmacher receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves and is the prime source for more current figures because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade. …

The number means there are more than 3,300 abortions daily and 137 abortions per hour every hour in the United States. Translated another way, an abortion is done about every 30 seconds in the United States.

The analysis also found that the best estimate for the current number of annual abortions in the United States — involving both the surgical abortion procedure as well as the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 — is 1.2 million.

To put this in perspective, consider the fact that the US had approximately 142,394,000 births for the first 39 years of Roe. Assuming for the moment that 2012 added as many births as 2011, the number rises to 146.348 million. That means that abortions accounted for 28% of all known pregnancy outcomes in the US during this 40-year period. We literally threw away more than a quarter of human beings waiting to be born since Roe.

If you believe that a fetus is no more significant than a blood clot, that number won’t horrify you. If you believe that a fetus is an individual human life with its own genetic identity — a scientific fact — that should be disturbing, even apart from any moral considerations. If one believes that human life is sacred, well, this goes from disturbing to horrifying, and beyond.

Allahpundit wrote about the NBC/WSJ poll that shows increasing support for keeping Roe intact, but I’d like to add a couple of thoughts, which includes his excellent earlier post on Japan, too. I’m less concerned about the current popularity status of abortion, which changes depending on pollster (Gallup and CNN last year showed Americans trending pro-life, Rasmussen pro-choice) than I am about the drift itself.

It seems that the debate isn’t taking place on either the scientific or the moral plane, but strictly on the utilitarian plane, and not just about the pregnancies, either. We aren’t talking about the horror of disposing of humans at the beginning or the end of life, but of the political consequences of championing life, or the financial implications of the disposal rather than the human costs. It’s the ultimate triumph of materialism; we’re not talking about whether, but when, how, and perhaps worst of all, cui bono.

And that, perhaps, is a horror in itself.

We aren’t going to move people to end or even start curtailing abortions on those terms. We have to work in our communities to keep the debate focused on the horror of killing human beings for the sake of convenience, and we have to change minds on the ground by working to provide people with better options when they feel alone and frightened. This isn’t a political campaign — it has to be a cultural campaign that aims to transform the current culture of death into a culture that values individual human life, and a culture that remembers that freely-chosen sacrifice for others should triumph over the convenience for self.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

What I want to know is, where’s the “liberation of women” that was supposed to come with abortion on demand? Are women now fully equal to men in every sphere of society now that womanhood has been decoupled from motherhood? That is what we were promised in 1973.

I would put the numbers for Roe in the same category as other conservative concerns. Right now liberalism across the board has the bully pulpit and ALL issues are tracking more left than they have before. Let’s face it we are on the defensive Ed on EVERY front because the voice of our party and what it stands for is Boehner and then maybe McConnell who are so political and cautious in what they say they can’t champion anything on the scale of Obama and the Democrats. I consider the numbers on abortions just a side effect of the party and it’s issues being demonized and the average person will side with the popular group on an issue they don’t feel strongly about. Right now that means all the “undecideds/swings” are polling left.

66% of Latinos are pro-abortion. Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the population. Surprise, the country is getting more pro-abortion.

What? Catching up with our culture of instant self gratification and carefree lifestyle in which children are viewed as an impediment to enjoying life, an unwanted responsibilty and a drain on personal time and resources?

What’s sadly ironic is that despite Roe v. Wade being the greatest achievement of the radical feminist movement, it was only successful because two female lawyers took advantage of a vulnerable young woman.

66% of Latinos are pro-abortion. Latinos are the fastest-growing segment of the population. Surprise, the country is getting more pro-abortion.

Jon0815 on January 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The only way I would ever change my opinion to be a staunch supporter of abortion is if they can develop a test to determine if someone is going to become a flaming leftist. I might have to change my stance if that ever happens.

Abortion on demand…A great shame on our nation, and on humanity itself. And unwanted pregnancy is totally preventable. It isn’t a religious issue, or even a modern political one. It comes down to protect the most basic of human right…the right to life.

Again, I speak of abortion on demand…If the mother’s life were considered by doctors to be threatened if a woman carried to term, then that would be an exception. As would a pregnancy by rape…I don’t want to know the person who could look a rape victim in the eyes and tell her she much carry and birth the child of her rapist.

Aside from those two contexts, legal abortion is mass murder of epic proportions.

More than 55 million abortions have taken place — which amounts to about one-sixth of the current American population:

55 million women not punished with a child, according to the President.

Blacks are five times more likely to have an abortion than whites and two times more likely than Hispanics. Which means, of course, that black women are less likely to be punished with a child than either whites or Hispanics.

Between abortion and rampant gang shootings in virtually every urban area, there is an active genocide on black perpetrated by the left’s ideology over everything else.

We aren’t going to move people to end or even start curtailing abortions on those terms. We have to work in our communities to keep the debate focused on the horror of killing human beings for the sake of convenience

We have murdered 55 million of our own citizens, I think we owe the Nazi’s an apology.

SWalker on January 22, 2013 at 12:24 PM

There, of course, is a huge difference. For the Nazis, sterilization of the racially “impure” and the Holacaust were state-mandated policies in which the subject of them had no choice.

With abortion, it is the “mother” who killed her child with society merely enabling the action. And with sluts from Georgetown Law screaming lies about abortion being some sort of a right of the mother. But if that’s the case, why do we limit the “right” to the womb? Shouldn’t the mother be able to kill the child after it is born? Why value human life at all if we, as a society, keep electing politicians who think nothing about killing a child and keeping a convicted cop-killer alive?

He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.

I guess they would say 55 million fewer kids would be a good start.
Just wait until the Socialist Oppressives can ‘limit’ the population with Obamacare.

If anything should be obvious after forty years, it must be that there is no societal consensus on abortion. Part of the population – a minority – views abortion as murder and as a moral abomination. A somewhat larger segment of the population does not and never will. Hot-tempered analogies to slavery go nowhere. I do not understand what is “conservative” about the desire to utilize the coercive power of government to enforce a minority view on the wider public. I do not understand what is “conservative” about attempting to drive abortion underground or about universalizing the practice of jury nullification. (Who in their right mind thinks you are going to find unanimous juries to convict in abortion prosecutions?) In the meantime, abortion sinks GOP efforts to elect Presidents or Senates. Great.

In April 2012, the Mississippi legislature passed House Bill 1390, which requires abortion providers to gain hospital admitting privileges. Since then, Parker and the other physicians at the clinic have been rejected by the area’s seven local hospitals. Five rejected them outright because they were opposed to being associated with an abortion provider, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. One wrote that giving doctors admitting privileges “would lead to both an internal and external disruption of the Hospital’s function and business within this community.”

If the Jackson clinic is closed, the 2,000 women who go there for abortions each year will need to travel out-of-state.

[4] Ah, sinful nation,
a people laden with iniquity,
offspring of evildoers,
sons who deal corruptly!
They have forsaken the LORD,
they have despised the Holy One of Israel,
they are utterly estranged.
[5] Why will you still be smitten,
that you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
[6] From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and bleeding wounds;
they are not pressed out, or bound up,
or softened with oil.
[7] Your country lies desolate,
your cities are burned with fire;
in your very presence
aliens devour your land;
it is desolate, as overthrown by aliens.
[8] And the daughter of Zion is left
like a booth in a vineyard,
like a lodge in a cucumber field,
like a besieged city.
[9] If the LORD of hosts
had not left us a few survivors,
we should have been like Sodom,
and become like Gomor’rah.
[10] Hear the word of the LORD,
you rulers of Sodom!
Give ear to the teaching of our God,
you people of Gomor’rah!
[11] “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the LORD;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of he-goats.
[12] “When you come to appear before me,
who requires of you
this trampling of my courts?
[13] Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies –
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
[14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me,
I am weary of bearing them.
[15] When you spread forth your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.

Is it any wonder that leftism/progressivism is found wanting and hard to understand? Very hard to understand for 55 million.

Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 12:30 PM

They worry about lobsters being killed humanely but meanwhile back at the abortion factory they dont mind sucking the brains out of a live fetus for fun and profit, sometimes paid for by tax payers. Disgusting.

There, of course, is a huge difference.
Happy Nomad on January 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Yes, there is a huge difference… We have been far more successful and murdering our own citizens than the Nazi’s ever dreamed of being. How the Nazi’s chose their victims stopped being relevant when we passed them up in sheer volume. We have killed 5 times as many of our citizens as them, yet they are considered evil and we get a pass? Yea I don’t think so….

I have often said that everyone in this nation should have to field dress an animal. Butcher a hog or livestock to see where food comes from. Hint, it isn’t from shelves. Perhaps I should consider our citizens to witness first hand the abortion they so treasure. Of course that would run counter to my wanting no abortions. Quandary.

If the Jackson clinic is closed, the 2,000 women who go there for abortions each year will need to travel out-of-state.

agmartin on January 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM

I’ve got no problem with that. Though, I suspect that the rat-eared wonder will find something in the HHS mandate that directs whatever the hell it is they are trying to accomplish. Let’s keep in mind, the election established the fact that whores like Sandra Fluke had a right to abortion on demand. That selfish agenda-driven sluts had greater rights than unborn life. That religious institutions (including hospitals) were second class citizens when it comes to having their beliefs honored. There will be a special place in hell for monsters like Sandra Fluke.

Comparisons to slavery are not hot-tempered. You just think that they are, because you don’t see the logical similarities (yet).

300 years ago you would have argued for slavery the same way you argue for abortion now. It wouldn’t have been your fault. A huge majority regarded slavery as normal and abolitionists as crazy fanatics.

If anything should be obvious after forty years, it must be that there is no societal consensus on abortion. Part of the population – a minority – views abortion as murder and as a moral abomination. A somewhat larger segment of the population does not and never will. Hot-tempered analogies to slavery go nowhere. I do not understand what is “conservative” about the desire to utilize the coercive power of government to enforce a minority view on the wider public. I do not understand what is “conservative” about attempting to drive abortion underground or about universalizing the practice of jury nullification. (Who in their right mind thinks you are going to find unanimous juries to convict in abortion prosecutions?) In the meantime, abortion sinks GOP efforts to elect Presidents or Senates. Great.

wbcoleman on January 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Do you not?

First, this is a republic, not a democracy. “Mob rule” doesn’t work here; if a majority of citizens decided that all people with nicknames ending in “coleman” were to be put to death, guess what – you, as a living individual, have rights which cannot be taken simply because the majority wish it. With respect to our God-given rights, there is no question of what the majority/minority want – they are rights. Are we clear?

Second, conservatives believe that *everyone* is entitled to those rights, even those who can’t defend themselves against those who would deny them those rights. Are we clear?

Think about it a bit; it’s not really all that complicated from a principles perspective.

This isn’t a political campaign — it has to be a cultural campaign that aims to transform the current culture of death into a culture that values individual human life, and a culture that remembers that freely-chosen sacrifice for others should triumph over the convenience for self.

But the Democrats told me that the abortions would be “rare” and “when the life of the mother is in danger”…

Are you suggesting that they misled me?

The Dems position is that they want abortions to be rare. They never said that they’d stand in the way of some slut from Georgetown Law from killing off the product of a few too many drinks bar hopping one Saturday night. Why punish the “mother” with a child that way?

The only thing I wish would happen to these “mothers” who exercise their abortive rights is mandatory spaying so that the possibility of them being punished with a child never happens again. The societal benefit being that the taxpayer won’t have to pay for another such procedure ever again.

First, this is a republic, not a democracy. “Mob rule” doesn’t work here; if a majority of citizens decided that all people with nicknames ending in “coleman” were to be put to death, guess what – you, as a living individual, have rights which cannot be taken simply because the majority wish it. With respect to our God-given rights, there is no question of what the majority/minority want – they are rights. Are we clear?

Second, conservatives believe that *everyone* is entitled to those rights, even those who can’t defend themselves against those who would deny them those rights. Are we clear?

Think about it a bit; it’s not really all that complicated from a principles perspective.

Midas on January 22, 2013 at 12:57 PM[/quote]

Yes, the Constitution places limits on the rights of the majority. Not exactly a news flash.

I find it revealing that in this argument, the analogy is invariably “slavery” – in which the majority eventually DID impose abolition upon the minority – or, as here, some strained, fake hypothesis like persecuting people because of their name. You seldom see realistic examples because those are always the result of a “liberal” Supreme Court decision.

The unalterable fact is that, not only does the majority not regard abortion as murder, a huge majority is unwilling to regard women who abort as murderers. Look, I appreciate the moral fervor of the anti-abortion movement, but I resent its inevitable result – being governed by Barack Obama and a Democratic Senate.

Slavery did exactly the same thing. Slaves rights were not as important as the slaveholder because they were considered property to dispose of at will.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

I think your analogy breaks down for one simple reason. Slaves were considered property and an asset. Those who don’t object to abortions don’t even give these children status as property and certainly not an asset.

In this context, abortion is more akin to the brutal ways that the Nazis got rid of children they viewed as undesirable.

Sooo, 55 Million babies aborted…55 Million fewer potential tax payers…hmmm, ever wonder why the Government STILL refuses to lift a finger secure our southern border? Ever wonder why so many in the Government want to do another huge shAmnesty? Yeah, they want to try to replace those 55 million with illegal…err newly legal citizens.

The unalterable fact is that, not only does the majority not regard abortion as murder, a huge majority is unwilling to regard women who abort as murderers. Look, I appreciate the moral fervor of the anti-abortion movement, but I resent its inevitable result – being governed by Barack Obama and a Democratic Senate.

wbcoleman on January 22, 2013 at 1:10 PM

And the Holocaust was brought about because a majority agreed with the idea that “pure Germans” were racially superior to all other races. That doesn’t make what the Nazis did any more ethically defensible.

And I disagree with you that you somehow are being governed by the rat-eared wonder just because some of us find abortion repugnant and murder. It is wrong to abandon dearly-held opinions just because some slut from Georgetown Law has a large soap box to preach the “right” of free contraception. It is wrong to agree with the filthy bastard that having a child is punishment. If you want to abandon all principles in the name of winning elections put a Biden 2016 bumper sticker on your car and STFU.

You're overlooking the fact that we got here because of judicial overreach based on erroneous data and prejudiced testimony, not because of societal evolution. Now we have a generation that has grown up thinking that what the law does not forbid is not morally wrong.

These things are tells. Signs of a declining culture and society. They are all part of the whole.

Cleombrotus on January 22, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The tell is the fact that so many are vocally supporting culture of death. The tell is that people who consider themselves perfectly decent human beings don’t want to “judge” and consider killing off a child a “mother’s” right. Pretty damn disgusting.

I do not understand what is “conservative” about the desire to utilize the coercive power of government to enforce a minority view on the wider public. I do not understand what is “conservative” about attempting to drive abortion underground or about universalizing the practice of jury nullification. (Who in their right mind thinks you are going to find unanimous juries to convict in abortion prosecutions?) In the meantime, abortion sinks GOP efforts to elect Presidents or Senates. Great.

wbcoleman on January 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM

You seem to have a black and white view of a social conservative’s view on abortion. Yes, jailing women who’ve had an abortion, trying to delineate legitimate rape, and being viewed as the party of forced birthers are losing hands in the political spectrum. If conservatives focus on these discussions, we will lose the middle.

But, those divisive issues aren’t the boundaries where the real fights are taking place. The real fights are personal. They are one woman at a time, one pregnancy at a time. They are high fidelity ultrasounds. They are showing young women what “it” is. Because at clinics around the nation, 97 percent of them chose to keep their baby when they know what “it” is. Knowing what “it” is makes all the difference. Yes, this is about elections, but it is also about real lives.

How about the impotent GOP take some moral viagra and start attacking the racist left for its organized government programs of disproportionate slaughter of little black children? Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Ed, it’s not only abortion – now we’ve got euthanisia (“assisted suicide”), fetal stem cell research (which hasn’t cured anything yet), surrogate motherhood, human cloning research, etc. As my wife says, “We’ve let Death get its foot in the door, and now it has the run of the house.”

It’s no longer God Bless America; it’s God Have Mercy On America. And I’m not sure we deserve mercy.

You seem to have a black and white view of a social conservative’s view on abortion. Yes, jailing women who’ve had an abortion, trying to delineate legitimate rape, and being viewed as the party of forced birthers are losing hands in the political spectrum. If conservatives focus on these discussions, we will lose the middle.

STL_Vet on January 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM

You say that as if the GOP stands only for these “squirrel” issues. Much of it is manufactured by a media willing to be propagandists for the enemy. Jailing women who’ve had an abortion??? Who suggested that? I rank it right up there with the claims the GOP wanted to ban all abortions as a platform plank. Simply not true. In short, these are not the discussions of conservative focus but they are the discussions the GOP ignores at their peril. Mitt Romney let the “war on greedy selfish stupid women” go unchallenged and that was a big mistake.

How about the impotent GOP take some moral viagra and start attacking the racist left for its organized government programs of disproportionate slaughter of little black children? Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Don L on January 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Hard to figure out how the GOP would do that. The black community clearly cares only about skin color and not achievement, accomplishment, or making things better for themselves and all Americans.

Assuming that conservatives do not have abortions, there are now 55 million less Democrat voters than there would have been without Roe vs Wade. Just saying…

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Welfare state and illegal immigration replaces them.

Without all the incentives for Democrat ‘minority’ voters to breed like rabbits, and borders as secure as a colander, they’d be mostly be left with a fast-shrinking cadre of clueless Caucasian voters, most of whom are college-age.

In accordance with its widely publicized anti-abortion teachings, the Catholic Church opposes abortion in all circumstances and often leads the national debate on abortion.

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

Recognizing the different views on abortion among its members, the American Baptist Churches’ General Board encourages women and couples considering the procedure “to seek spiritual counsel as they prayerfully and conscientiously consider their decision.” Though the board opposes abortion “as a primary means of birth control,” it does not condemn abortion outright.

Buddhism

There is no official position on abortion among Buddhists, although many Buddhists believe that life begins at conception and that killing is morally wrong. In Japan, where there is a large Buddhist population, abortions are commonly practiced and often involve the Buddhist tradition of mizuko jizo, in which aborted fetuses are thought to be led to the land of the dead.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that “elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God.” Therefore, the church says, any facilitation of or support for this kind of abortion warrants excommunication from the church. However, the church believes that certain circumstances can justify abortion, such as a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother or that has come about as the result of rape or incest.

Episcopal Church

While the Episcopal Church recognizes a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, the church condones abortion only in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities. The church forbids “abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience.”

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The official position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America states that “abortion prior to viability [of a fetus] should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding” but that abortion after the point of fetal viability should be prohibited except when the life of a mother is threatened or when fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn.

Hinduism

Unless a mother’s health is at risk, traditional Hindu teachings condemn abortion because it is thought to violate the religion’s teachings of nonviolence. The general value system of Hinduism teaches that the correct course of action in any given situation is the one that causes the least harm to those involved.

Islam

Although there are different opinions among Islamic scholars about when life begins and when abortion is permissible, most agree that the termination of a pregnancy after four months – the point at which, in Islam, a fetus is thought to become a living soul – is not permissible. Many Islamic thinkers contend that in cases prior to four months of gestation, abortion should be permissible only in instances in which a mother’s life is in danger or in cases of rape.

Judaism

Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to safe and accessible abortions, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod states that “[s]ince abortion takes a human life, it is not a moral option except to prevent the death of … the mother.”

National Association of Evangelicals

The National Association of Evangelicals has passed a number of resolutions (most recently in 2010) stating its opposition to abortion. However, the organization recognizes that there might be situations in which terminating a pregnancy is warranted – such as protecting the life of a mother or in cases of rape or incest.

National Council of Churches

Because of the diverse theological teachings of its member churches, the National Council of Churches does not have an official position on abortion. The NCC instead seeks to provide a space where members can come together and exchange views.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

In 2006, the Presbyterian Church’s national governing body, the General Assembly, reaffirmed its belief that the termination of a pregnancy is a personal decision. While the church disapproves of abortion as a means of birth control or as a method of convenience, it seeks “to maintain within its fellowship those who, on the basis of a study of Scripture and prayerful decision, come to diverse conclusions and actions” on the issue.

Southern Baptist Convention

In a 1996 resolution on partial-birth abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its opposition to abortion, stating that “all human life is a sacred gift from our sovereign God and therefore … all abortions, except in those very rare cases where the life of the mother is clearly in danger, are wrong.”

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Beginning in 1963, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a series of resolutions to support “the right to choose contraception and abortion as a legitimate expression of our constitutional rights.”

United Church of Christ

The United Church of Christ is a firm advocate of reproductive rights, including the right to a safe abortion.

United Methodist Church

While the United Methodist Church opposes abortion, it affirms that it is “equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child.” The church sanctions “the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures” but rejects abortion as a method of gender selection or birth control and stresses that those considering abortions should prayerfully seek guidance from their doctors, families and ministers.

Conservatives are losing votes over something that really is not worth it. Women will not have Roe vs Wade repealed, because they are never going back to choosing between back alley abortions or raising a child. If that means they have to vote Democrat, so be it. Your loss.

Why is it that the party that always proclaims that people have to take responsibility for their own lives, cannot leave people alone to make that decision as they see fit?

Why is it that the party that always proclaims that people have to take responsibility for their own lives, cannot leave people alone to make that decision as they see fit?

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM

You’re omitting one huge factor as to why people are against abortion. Yes, it’s partly a personal responsibility issue, but the other much bigger factor, is that we believe that an unborn baby is alive and is a human life at conception and should have all the rights and protections they deserve.

Contrasted with the pro-abortion argument that it’s not a human life until birth so as to conveniently further their argument and desire to keep killing babies and probably helps them sleep better at night to boot.

Conservatives are losing votes over something that really is not worth it. Women will not have Roe vs Wade repealed, because they are never going back to choosing between back alley abortions or raising a child. If that means they have to vote Democrat, so be it. Your loss.

Why is it that the party that always proclaims that people have to take responsibility for their own lives, cannot leave people alone to make that decision as they see fit?

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM

So….The only fights worth fighting are those that are perceived as winnable?

He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.

I guess they would say 55 million fewer kids would be a good start.
Just wait until the Socialist Oppressives can ‘limit’ the population with Obamacare.

Chip on January 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM

On the other hand when the topic is the Second Amendment, they claim to be willing to go to any length necessary to save a single life.

Why is it that the party that always proclaims that people have to take responsibility for their own lives, cannot leave people alone to make that decision as they see fit?

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Why is it people who claim they are pro-science don’t understand the funamental truth that abortion is not a women making a decision about her life. She is deciding whether ANOTHER human being lives or dies.

“Why is it people who claim they are pro-science don’t understand the funamental truth that abortion is not a women making a decision about her life. She is deciding whether ANOTHER human being lives or dies.”

So? It is still her decision to make. Not some lawmaker, who is not going to bear the consequences, and not some religious person who says it is against the rules of his god, a god that woman may not even believe in. Her life, her body, her decision. As simple as that.

“Why is it people who claim they are pro-science don’t understand the funamental truth that abortion is not a women making a decision about her life. She is deciding whether ANOTHER human being lives or dies.”

So? It is still her decision to make. Not some lawmaker, who is not going to bear the consequences, and not some religious person who says it is against the rules of his god, a god that woman may not even believe in. Her life, her body, her decision. As simple as that.

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

You rationalize a cynical position that one human being can judge the worth or value of another human life according to an arbitrary utilitarian standard.

This position denies the disruptive effect on natural instinct to the woman, and the culture. A culture that kills it’s young acts against it’s own instinct.

Abortion is injustice…just as infanticide is injustice…just as euthanasia is injustice…It is an abuse of power over the most vulnerable.

Machiavelli espoused a similar philosophy because he thought moral systems were impractical, and only useful as a tool to be manipulated when necessary to achieve an objective to consolidate power to advantage of the strong over the weak.

If you believe that a fetus is no more significant than a blood clot, that number won’t horrify you. If you believe that a fetus is an individual human life with its own genetic identity — a scientific fact — that should be disturbing, even apart from any moral considerations. If one believes that human life is sacred, well, this goes from disturbing to horrifying, and beyond.

I know you are pro-life Ed but please don’t use the words of the left..fetus is a made up word used to dehumanize a baby..its a baby in the womb and outside of the womb..i hate the word fetus, hate it with a passion

I know you are pro-life Ed but please don’t use the words of the left..fetus is a made up word used to dehumanize a baby..its a baby in the womb and outside of the womb..i hate the word fetus, hate it with a passion

sadsushi on January 22, 2013 at 9:44 PM

.
I’m not criticizing you, Ed.

But I do share the same dispassion for the word “fetus”, that sadsushi does.

.
Women cannot escape from (nor should they be trying to) the bio-mechanics of their reproductive organs, if they’re going to be sexually active. The female body is where all of humanity (since Adam and Eve) has started their lives . . . . . . . . oh awright . . . . . except for “test-tube babies”.
But the baby whose conception takes place in a test tube must be implanted in the womb, very shortly after.

If anything should be obvious after forty years, it must be that there is no societal consensus on abortion. Part of the population – a minority – views abortion as murder and as a moral abomination. A somewhat larger segment of the population does not and never will. Hot-tempered analogies to slavery go nowhere. I do not understand what is “conservative” about the desire to utilize the coercive power of government to enforce a minority view on the wider public. I do not understand what is “conservative” about attempting to drive abortion underground or about universalizing the practice of jury nullification. (Who in their right mind thinks you are going to find unanimous juries to convict in abortion prosecutions?) In the meantime, abortion sinks GOP efforts to elect Presidents or Senates. Great.

wbcoleman on January 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Protecting life is not just conservative, it’s a moral imperative. I cannot imagine anything more destructive to a constitutional republic than saying it’s fine to kill certain groups of people if only a minority wants them.

This is not a democracy, nor should it ever be.

What we have is really simple: a large group of people who want the convenience of being able to get rid of children they don’t want before they’re born, and are willing to rationalize it by saying they’re not really alive or not really human. Some issues are complicated, but this one is simple. It’s the rationalization of killing the inconvenient.

The absolute ugliest thing about abortion is that the only difference between the baby that gets killed and the baby that is anxiously waited for, is whether or not the mother wants the baby. The baby is presumed human if the mother wants him or her, and presumed inhuman if not.

“Why is it people who claim they are pro-science don’t understand the funamental truth that abortion is not a women making a decision about her life. She is deciding whether ANOTHER human being lives or dies.”

So? It is still her decision to make. Not some lawmaker, who is not going to bear the consequences, and not some religious person who says it is against the rules of his god, a god that woman may not even believe in. Her life, her body, her decision. As simple as that.

Antivenin on January 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Not her life, her baby’s life. Not her body, her baby’s body. So by your own logic, it’s not her decision, but her baby’s decision.

Using the same standard generally used in child custody cases, a child too young to decide for himself or herself would have a state-appointed guardian who would look out for the child’s best interests. Is anyone seriously going to claim that the child’s best interest is to be killed before birth?